Google Search

Recent Comments

Tags

01 May 2017

I know that some people are suing the DNC (Democratic National Committee) for being biased during the primaries.

Even if the case that has merit, and I don't think that it does, but I am an engineer, not a doctor, dammit,* I feel that this is firmly in the philosophical category of things that should not be adjudicated in a court of law.†

Additionally, I do not think that DNC donors are "consumers".

Reducing politics to the status of a consumer transaction seems to me to cheapen politics. (As much as this concepts buggers the mind)

Last Monday, Senior U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch heard oral arguments regarding a Motion to Dismiss filed by attorneys representing the Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in the class-action lawsuit filed against them. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of Democratic Party donors who made financial contributions to Bernie Sanders and the Party under the presumption the primary would be conducted fairly per the DNC’s charter. The lawsuit was filed in June 2016 following the release of leaked emails showing behind-the-scenes collusion between the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and other entities to ensure Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee prior to Americans casting votes in the party’s primary contests.

………

The crux of the Motion to Dismiss asserts the Judge is not in a position to determine how the Democratic Party conducts its nominating process.

The DNC asserts the following:

The DNC is under no obligation to obey its own by-laws which guarantee neutrality. (Notwithstanding the fact that by-laws are legally binding,)‡

That impartiality is undefinable and unenforceable.

There is no legal meaning to being a DNC member.

DNC counsel is unaware of how the DNC is involved in state primaries and caucuses.

That the DNC actually conducted a fair primary, even though they did not have to.

Counsel was unwilling to answer the question as to whether the DNC has a legal responsibility to tell the truth.

I understand that this is a motion to dismiss, and lawyers tend to make the broadest possible arguments at this stage, but even in the context of this, this is NOT something that should leave anyone favorably disposed to the Democratic Party establishment.

*I love it when I get to go all Dr. McCoy!†But I'm an engineer, not a philosopher, dammit.*‡Yes, I know, legal talk, but I have actually founded a not-for profit, so this sh%$ that I know, and I have done, so no Dr. McCoy moment.